Heheheh. Faith-based wars. Sweet. Maybe if y’all clapped harder, the Iraqis would stop killing each other?

Yes, it is. It’s from that lefty playbook called the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:

redeployment — The transfer of forces and materiel to support another joint force commander’s operational requirements, or to return personnel, equipment, and materiel to the home and/or demobilization stations for reintegration and/or out-processing.

I could understand if we were redeploying the troops straight to Iran, Pakistan, or Darfur, but “redeploying” them home isn’t a redeployment. It is a withdrawal. At least call it what it is, you are ceeding Iraq to the terrorists because you have no faith in America or its troops.

Comment by Roger_Roger — November 15, 2007 @ 10:20 am

Actually, a significant portion of the force would most likely remain in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and other bases in the region for quite some time, and there would be a significant contingent of Marines at the U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad for an indefinite period. So whether you want to call it a withdrawal from Iraq or redeployment outside Iraq is your choice.

It is definitely not “ceeding” Iraq to “the terrorists,” however. This is just asinine troll spin and you know it.

It’s leaving Iraq in the hands of the shaikhs we’ve armed so that they can defeat the small al-Qa’ida presence in their own country and focus on building political stability in their country. And we’ll give them a whole 13 months to do it, more if necessary. But we need to refocus the mission on leaving Iraq rather than on maintaining our position as referee to three civil wars.

As opposed to indefinite occupation of a foreign nation?

Give them their country back and give them a chance.

We’ve definitely “lost faith” in letting Neocon bootlickers make all the calls.

Back under your rock, oh cowardly one.

Seems to me if it’s a ‘non-binding’ goal, this war will drag out forever. No one is going to convince me that our military leaders can’t plan the exit date. It’s another case of ‘kicking the can’ down the road. It’s all a moot point anyway, we don’t have the votes to override the veto that’s sure to come.

Comment by wijg — November 15, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Why is that a bullshit bill? 11 months is a pretty reasonable timetable for withdrawal. And realistically it has to be a non-binding date – if it’s physically impossible to redeploy, the date will need to move.

“By December 15, 2008, all American combat soldiers would be out. In a disappointment to liberal Democrats, that date would be a nonbinding goal.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071115/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

Comment by John Kerry — November 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am

No, we don’t hate the “fact” that Iraq is finally turning around due to George Bush. We hate the lie that Iraq is finally turning around due to George Bush. It’s not turning around. Deaths are down slightly, but ethnic cleansing is up, political instability is up, and at least two civil wars and one cross-border war are continuing. It’s only “turning around” because you people lie and say that it’s “turning around.”

The purpose of the surge was to allow Iraqis to make progress on the political front. Where’s the progress?

The Iraqis democratically choose a government much like the ones the Palestenians did. Is that a defeat for us, yes or no?

Do you understand the irony of you accusing us of censorship on a site that you are only allowed to post on because left wing sites allows dissenting views? Can you name one right wing website where dissent isnt banned?

SUICIDE ATTACK ON IRAQ POLICE IN KIRKUK KILLS FIVE: 08.33

Iraq to punish firms which signed oil deals with Kurds: 12:11

Suicide attack on Iraq police in Kirkuk kills seven: 13:14

US says Iraq attacks down as Iran stems arms flow: 15:59

Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 15, 2007 @ 8:05 am

Oh no not Poland ;_;